Day: October 29, 2006

HAROLD FORD, JR.: My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there’s one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord.

Applause followed his comments.

Bryan over at HA wrote that he used to think Ford, Jr. was intelligent and decent, but not after this. I can’t disagree with that: despite Ford’s little fib about the Playboy party and crashing a Corker media event, I still felt like the guy was basically a decent guy, because of how he handled himself in the media, and how he doesn’t endorse Nutroot-style behavior. I don’t think he’s such a decent guy, not after this.

The Dems are really pulling out all the stops this year because they’re desperate to regain control of Congress. Stunts like this one by Ford, Jr. are just one more on a long list of them.

Oh – and one more thing: the ad liberals whined about, claiming it was racist because there was a white woman in the ad telling a black man (Ford, Jr.) to “call her”, was not racist – according to Harold Ford, Jr. Of course it’s easy for him to say, now that it’s been pulled.

Update I: Bob Corker has responded to Ford, Jr.’s comments (his comments come in around 1:54 into the video):

I think Ford may easily capture the award for the most stunning display of incompetence in the closing two weeks of a senate campaign ever. Other nominees are welcome, but I can’t think of a series of missteps as dramatic as those Ford has committed.

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.

Unflippingbelievable.

Michael, in case you’re wondering what the specs of the bill state, and why Jim Talent (and others who agree with him, like me) don’t support it, click here.

When I blogged earlier this week about the Allen campaign releasing selected excerpts of books written by Jim Webb, I made clear that I didn’t think the book excerpts were a big deal. Were they sexually bizarre? Yes. But were excerpts of fictional books relevant to this race? No.

In that same post, I noted that a year ago on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, KO slammed a similar type book written by Scooter Libby. Here’s what KO said:

Artists and actors and satirists and newscasters are all quick to remind us, hey, just because I played this part and created this character, read the story, that doesnâ€˜t mean I am them. But how much insight does a novel really give us into the psyche of the author?

[â€¦]

Now we have beaten the hell out of Libby for this, and deservedly so. If a Democratic White House official had written this book, his head would be on a pike somewhere.

I asked in my post: “Will Keith provide the same attention to the excerpts from Webb’s books?”

The answer: No. KO used a few minutes of his broadcast time to defend Jim Webb’s books, carefully noting they were fiction. Read Olbermann Watch for a recap of KO’s Friday show, in which he did everything he could to defend Webb’s writings, a stark contrast to how he not only treated Scooter Libby’s fictional book, but the fictional book Bill O’Reilly wrote as well. The show transcript at KO’s site has not been posted yet, otherwise I would have linked to it as well.

With Nutroots candidate Ned Lamont’s campaign going nowhere fast, the NYT is pulling out all the stops in order to try and help him gain some momentum in the polls, going into the elections in just over a week. The latest poll taken in the CT Senate race shows Lieberman with a 12 point lead. Quinnipac has him up by 17.

To show their support, earlier this week the NYT published a hit piece on Senator Lieberman – two weeks before the election. And now, in addition to their first endorsement of Lamont, which they published in late July before the CT primary, they’ve posted a second endorsement of Lamont here. Check out this hilarious snippet:

Mr. Lieberman has changed his tone but not his underlying conviction that he has been right all along. He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Translation: Shame on Joe Lieberman for not wanting to cut and run!

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation.

LOL – “growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation”? The NYT is too much sometimes. In this critical time in history as the war on terror is being waged, the NYT endorses someone who they feel has a “growing sophistication” about the issues facing the nation, rather than someone who has served for years in Congress. Apparently to the NYT, it’s ok to not have the experience you need to serve in the US Senate, as long as your beliefs and theirs mesh. And, assuming you get elected to the Senate, yours and the NYT’s meshing beliefs can grow – together.